Is this an attempt at a correction?

[asteckley]

I'm sure somewhere in the forum and blogs, someone has probably provided their observations on the last word token in folio 24v, line 6.
It appears to be a 'correction' in that the scribe has added in a (missed) letter glyph.

Has anyone had or seen any thoughts about this particular anomaly in the Voynichese text?

It is hard to construe it as a correction. What needs correcting? Adding the extra letter to the vord wouldn't improve it and in fact would deform it. Unless the scribe was unhappy with a glyph and wanted to clarify it - but the vord is as as well written as any other on the page. Arguably, the initial letter is a malformed [cfh] but in that case how does the correction correct it?

I used the term "correction" for lack of a better description.  It might be "well written", but it is clearly not like elsewhere. One letter is written above the rest and it's probable reason to believe that it was added in after the fact (i.e to correct what was otherwise present in its absence).

What is also curious is that I cannot find any combination of these letter-glyphs (i.e candidate options for what the "word" is) occurring as a word-token anywhere else in the manuscript. This particular word ("{cf}arsa,r" in ZL transliteration) is then both unusual in how it has been altered and in that it is unique (i.e is a "hapax legomenon").